Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 1

Data behind the vaccine
https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/

Where to add this? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:MEDRS so not really useful for anything biomedical; maybe useful for something on the (mis)handling of the various announcements, but possibly at AstraZeneca rather than here. Alexbrn (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the causes for Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) apply here. It is the very evidence quality, which is assessed. The author is Hilda Bastian, integrally associated with Cochrane. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need something rather better than an article in Wired for an assessment of evidence quality, especially in this subject area where sanctions are in effect. Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Article title
Should we rename this one Covishield? ,Crookesmoor (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As of now, I oppose moving this article to "Covishield". From what I could gather, that name recently started to be referenced by Media in India (See  ). If someone can find any source be the University of Oxford and/or AstraZeneca with that name, please let me know, as I can't find any yet. Anyway, even if "Covishield" comes to be the commercial name of this vaccine, the page should be moved to have the name of the pharmaceutical name of the substance (See: (International nonproprietary name (INN))), not the commercial name (See: Gam-COVID-Vac for "Sputnik V" and Tozinameran for "Comirnaty"). ACLNM (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, per WP:MEDTITLE. Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Too soon to move this page? New discussion on 05 January 2021
There has been some traction (mainly in Indian media, from what I could find  ) to start calling this vaccine by the name "Covishield". Even yesterday I opposed the adoption of that name, defending that the page should only be moved once the pharmaceutical name of the vaccine's active component(s) is established. I was now scrolling through AstraZeneca's press releases and I found this press release ; according to it, they themselves refer to their own vaccine by the name "COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, formerly AZD1222". I can't find yet the International nonproprietary name (INN) for this vaccine, so I suppose it is not yet established/public. I propose that, before we move the page to any of the commercial names, we wait at least a few weeks for new developments, especially regarding the INN and/or the substance's official name. ACLNM (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Half-first-dose issue
I was wondering what happened with the issue of whether a first half-dose is better than a full first dose or not. I found the following article that claims that the 90-percent efficacy rate for the first half-dose did not hold up under further analysis—the higher success rate may have been due to a longer gap between the two doses. Gabn1 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would need WP:MEDRS (and then there's the question of what "better" means; better for an individual, or better for society?) Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine (cropped).jpg

95% effectiveness, if the 2 shots are separated by 3 months?
"2 min read. Updated: 29 Dec 2020, 07:23 AM IST

Title: Efficacy of Oxford jabs at 95% if given 3 months apart: SII.

AstraZeneca will soon release data showing that the effectiveness of its covid-19 vaccine rises to as much as 95% if the two shots are separated by about 2-3 months, said Adar Poonawalla, chief executive of Serum Institute of India (SII), the British company’s manufacturing partner".

https://www.livemint.com/science/health/efficacy-of-oxford-jabs-at-95-if-given-3-months-apart-sii-11609181643451.html

Yes I know 3 months is a too long time in this covid fight, or is it? With 1 months the efficacy is much lower, so why not wait for 2 more months?

--ee1518 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this a type of DNA vaccine?
Per Talk:COVID-19 vaccine, is this drug classed as a DNA vaccine?

I was not sure, but if it is, we should state it in the description (and update the DNA vaccine article)? Britishfinance (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say the key point is "replication-deficient simian adenovirus vector" is not wikilinked or otherwise defined.   replication-deficient->(Deficient in replication)  simian->Simian  adenovirus->adenovirus vector->Viral vector .... not my area so I'm not touching it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Britishfinance It is not a DNA vaccine but explaining that the mechanism is, as for DNA vaccines, to bring a DNA strand encoding the Spike into the cell nucleus, is a good idea. Adding an Adenovirus-vector section into the DNA vaccine article (explaining the same) is not a bad idea neither. 2A01:E0A:852:9590:854A:FE19:B4A0:45F7 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think (AFAIK) it IS a DNA vaccine, in the sense that it deivers engineered/modified DNA to the target cells, with the aim to make them produce the SARS2 spike protein. I do not know the specifics nor I am knowledgeable about this stuff but even WHO says that the distinction between viral vector vaccine and DNA vaccine is not so clear. Also the WP article about viral vector vaccine mentions that is "based on the same rationale as DNA vaccines". I heard a professional coronavirologists call it DNA vaccine (in a youtube video trying to explain the mechanism to the viewers). It would be interesting and valuable to clear this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.189.237 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Production
The “Production and Supply” section doesn’t actually have anything about production in it. AFAIK the production is at a number of plants in India, Europe and the UK. Would be good to flesh that out. Fig (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Involvement of Bill Gates Foundation
This article seem to indicate that Oxford reversed its original position on pricing the vaccine, on the urging of Bill Gates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.29.8 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * More up-to-date. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

EU press briefing
Press briefing on EU recommendation for COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca

Live broadcast - 15:00 - 15:45 CET

Date: 29 January 2021

This virtual press briefing will discuss the outcome of the evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca by EMA’s human medicines committee (CHMP).

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/events/press-briefing-eu-recommendation-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Useful link to Covax Oxford vaccine distribution
Here is a link to a useful page setting out Covax's vaccine distribution program with the help of the Serum Institute of India and SK Bioscience of South Korea. I don't have time to add relevant info to this page, but thought I'd share the link: https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/covid/covax/COVAX-Interim-Distribution-Forecast.pdf Jopal22 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

South Africa stops rollout
"Rollout of AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine Halted in South Africa After Study Small clinical trial found that it doesn’t appear to protect recipients against mild and moderate illness from a fast-spreading new strain of the coronavirus"

Infobox vaccine type -: adenovirus vector or recombinant?
Anon IP's seem to be doing unsummarised edit wars on whether to to have vaccine-type as adenovirus vector or recombinant in Template:Infobox drug. Have we have a consensus view please. Don't just edit it in, put reasoning and gain consensus here first please. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Question, are there both adenovirus vector or recombinant is vaccine type or there different? 136.158.32.147 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Quick passing comment (not throughly checked): The WHO report currently in the external link classifies the type as recombinant which is a standard type mentioned in Template:Infobox drug (and covers a wide variety of vaccines).  Adenovirus vector is I believe mentioned more widely(maybe not by  WP:MEDRS sources though), and may not be straighforwardly wikilinked to/from recombinant from memory. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WHO calls it recombinant here but my understanding is that it's both. "Viral vector" means that a harmless virus like Ad5 is used to deliver the vaccine material into the target cell. "Recombinant" means that the DNA of the viral vector has been modified to invoke an immune response against covid, rather than against Ad5. The Oxford vaccine uses a simian virus (the viral vector) to deliver a spike protein coding sequence (the recombinant DNA) to the target cell. I believe in the context of covid vaccines "viral vector" and "recombinant" may mean the same thing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @GA-RT-22 Yes, instead of discussing of the infobox, let's explain this into the #vaccine_platform section. ChAd is a DNA virus, following entry its DNA genes are transported to the cell nucleus to be transcripted into mRNA and translated by the cell's machinery. AZD1222 is replication defective: some essential adenoviral genes have been deleted and replaced by one coding for the spike, following entry of the *recombinant* virus its genes are transported to the cell nucleus thereby leading to the expression of the spike (eventually anchored onto the cell's surface, see this preprint), at this point it is the same for all approved vaccines: presentation of peptides on MHC-I, activation of T-cells, and the slightly more mysterious (cytotoxicity & phagocytosis against spike-expressing cells?) presentation on MHC-II on antigen presenting cells, which is the most desired effect, eventually transported to lymphoid organs and leading to B-cells/Th-cells affinity maturation of antibodies. 2A01:E0A:852:9590:6088:EC38:1F6E:EEA1 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Covishield in lead
Hi, you reverted the inclusion of the market name Covishield in the lead, citing WP:MEDLEAD. Please could you indicate where in WP:MEDLEAD it indicates that common market names should not be included in the lead section - MOS:MED clearly states "alternative names may be specified in the lead" and that we should "use plain English" if possible. In almost all other cases (e.g. Ibuprofen, Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Trastuzumab) articles include names that drugs are commonly marketed under. Thus, there is an imperative to include Covishield in the lead using both precedence and the MOS. ArcMachaon (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles for many other Covid-19 vaccines mention trade names in both the lead and the infobox. Articles for some medications write this information in a separate paragraph, which may make sense if the name is not widely used in the Anglosphere. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, per WP:GLOBAL and MOS:MED we should therefore include it in the lead - it is a widely used name in India when using English there (see WP:WORLDWIDE). I will therefore add it back into the lead. if you have any further queries direct them here. Thanks ArcMachaon (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Blood clots (help!)
Hi Wiki team, I found a link I think is the first mention of blood clots, the entire article is biased and probably not reliable, but may be the start of the rumours? Seems a non-western writer as well so motivation ??

https://laptrinhx.com/news/the-appalling-science-and-conflicts-of-interest-behind-the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-KlwKZpx/

Hope this may help in quelling the rumours 2404:4408:2365:D700:F97D:E3A4:B099:B60E (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What we have is fine. The link you provide is to disinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

German and Norwegian scientists have found indications that a special kind of blood clots are significantly connected with the vaccine. Agnerf (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A WP:MEDRS compliant source such as the ones in the article is required for such a statement. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Obese issue in Lede
Can I had peer review of the use of "obese" in the lede as I have to recuse from edits on the subject to avoid general sanctions, which is not necessary should an IP be being dynamic as may be the case here. Please consider if this is a WP:SYNTHESIS of results and this is detail which should be in the body rather than in the lede. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussion as in my view the obese question from intermediate results from one trials is an over emphasis in the lede. Please contact Astrazenica dirrect or the EMA or similar bodies if you have a concern or a point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I remain far from convinced the lede of this article needs a whole sentence defining obesity. Maybe the body justifies it.  It seems a WP:POINTy spat to me but why should I risk getting blocked fixing that point.Djm-mobile (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) (NB: Djm-mobile=Djm-leighpark). Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I've removed the definition of obesity, which was off topic and certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @: The problem is the bare URL Lancet source doesn't explicitly mention Obesity, that it does mention of maximum BMI:30; which would be daft to but in the lead section. It fact pulling out obesity from the source which already said "who for the most part had no underlying condition" is probably WP:POINTy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Will someone fix the Lancet URL thankyou
Since is requiring me to fix the Bare Lancet URL on the article summaries and I am trying to resolve a RL mess can someone please fix it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm still not sure why you didn't do it yourself, but you did say please. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan: I am multitasking and have mental issues why I was not going to sort that cite; which probably should replace some self published AZ stuff about the same trial. I've also been heavily slagged by anon IP's and pretty not supported much by the community ... though we do have a good source out it.  I may embellish it at some point (I haven't looked at what you've done since).  I think there's a few bad cites here where people have pointed at the top page to the EMA /EU website without leaving an access-time and these have been usurped and a right pain to WP:V.  Any for the Lancet job done. ✅. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Blood Clots
The possible issue with blood clots is being covered at Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events and I would expect a link from this article to it should be provided, possibly from the Safety Profile section, when that article has matured and stablised sufficiently. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That article should be merged here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Id disagree simply because its likely to become WP:UNDUE. With respect I'm sufficiently strong about that to call any attempt to merge as as controversial merge and to go through formal merge procedure. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Page protection
Comment: I observe has placed the page protection level to Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (indefinite) effectively blocking anon IP's and new users. While there has been some problems from anon. IP's there have also be some helpful contributions and its unclear to me if these contributions would be given via Edit Requests (and if given that way they can sometimes be time consuming to implement). Obviously there is the lower option of pending changes but this requires an admin or someone with "pending changes reviewers" reviewers right to accept the change, though anyone can revert it. (NB: I have pending changes reviewers right that I occasionally use but I suspect most muggles don't have it).Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No section on deaths? Continued POV pushing
The article still skirts around the deaths caused by blood clots. The UK has already reported 7 deaths out of the 30 who have developed the blood clots. None of this is in the article. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clotting-doctors-b1826144.html. There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots, contrary to what the article currently says. Again this information being actively concealed by certain editors is very concerning. --Huasteca (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Source for "There is no longer any doubt"? All sources on this matter must be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop using WP:MEDRS as a catch-all argument to stonewall this article. It doesn't mean anything in this context. Nothing in it justifies not reporting thrombotic deaths caused by Astrazeneca, Alexbrn.--Huasteca (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It means everything in this context. You are pushing your personal, scaremongering POV and if it continues you will be forcibly stopped from such monkey business. Alexbrn (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, do not Stonewall this article to push your POV. I have added the information on the suspensions in Germany, Canada and the Netherlands in the lead. Please do not remove it or we will have to take this to POV Noticeboard. Huasteca (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fine. But your personal reckon that "There is no longer any doubt" about the causal chain, when sources say the opposite, is not welcome in our article space unless supported by sources of requisite strength. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply because editors are objecting to your edits, because they do not comply with MEDRS, does not mean they are "stonewalling" the article. You may take this issue to the noticeboard, but I assure you other editors will back the very well established precedent of MEDRS. If anyone seems to be pushing a POV, it appears to be you repeatedly trying to stoke antivax fears using non-medical sources and without having secured consensus for your edits. Goodposts (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PRAC's Preliminary Assessment here. Their updated recommendations will be published some time this week. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/prac-recommendation/signal-assessment-report-embolic-thrombotic-events-smq-covid-19-vaccine-chadox1-s-recombinant-covid_en.pdf  Huasteca (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodposts I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Calling me an Anti-Vax is a very serious personal attack. I am not objecting to MEDRS I am objecting to name dropping MEDRS without elaborating further. Medical and governmental sources have detected 259 Astrazeneca-related serious cases of Embolic and Thrombotic events, 45 of which fatal. A majority have bee in young women. How does MEDRS exactly justify not mentioning this in the article when its literally sourced by EMA's safety committee? All this sounds very irregular and amateurish. Huasteca (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You've already been caught red-handed in erroneous POV-pushing (removing impeccably-sourced text as "editorializing"). I recommend you tread very carefully. Alexbrn (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Caught red-handed", Jesus Christ. Smells of desperation. You threaten me based on a good faith edit removing a single word? And your fellow POV editor launches a personal attack calling me an antivaxer, following his extensive editorializing of the lead with purposely confusing language so that it seems Germany did NOT suspend inoculation and is not at all concerned over deaths? . Interesting. This article needs to reflect medical and governmental sources, not be an advocacy page. Huasteca (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to like criticising and accusing people, yet appear not to be able to take even an ounce of criticism yourself. As soon as a statement you wrote is criticised as something that might be potentially biased, you immediately interpret this as a "very serious personal attack" and appear to begin attempting to play the victim, while at the same time launching off into some kind of a conspiracy over how "fellow POV editors" are colluding to "editorialize" the lead against you. The language is not confusing. The language is the exact same language as used in the source. The source you provided. It is extremely clear to anyone at or above a 4th grade reading level. Goodposts (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodposts 45 deaths have been attributed to Astrazeneca induced Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events. No similar conditions have been detected in other vaccines. This is sourced to the EMA and other national medical agencies. Could you again explain your rationale for wanting to delete this information from this article? It would be good to understand. I still don't perhaps due to my sub-4th grade reading level. Huasteca (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , there's a difference between "post-vaccination" and "Astrazeneca induced". Even the EMA does not say they were induced by the vaccines. You're on a fast track to a complete block soon if you keep this up. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The EMA says such events are associated to Astrazeneca and not to other Covid-19 vaccines. Which is what I wrote and which is what was deleted, including the EMA source. The article now lacks this highly relevant information which is all over the news the world over altogether. Ill leavve it to others to deal with this I hate getting threats on my talk page. Huasteca (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you may wish to read any of these examples that show why association (i.e. correlation) is not enough to prove causation. You wrote much more than that - you implied that they were definitively shown to be caused by the vaccine - which is not an appropriate jump to make. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User No point trying to bait me with flippant comments. I'm pretty sure I knew more about statistics than you do back when I was a teenager. I do believe personally there is a link (evidently) but I  don't want the article to reflect my opinion. I want it to reflect that these deaths and rare blood clots are associated with AZ and are in the process of being investigated. This is what sources say. Huasteca (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the conclusions of the EMA report that Huasteca cites (page 44): "Based on the review of clinical and non-clinical data (DLP 7 Dec 2020), there is currently no evidence to suggest an association of thrombotic events with the use of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca." NikosGouliaros (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * NikosGouliaros Quoting also Page 44 : However, a signal was noted for rare events, such as Disseminated intravascular coagulation, Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and Haemorrhagic stroke warranting further investigation. This could be described as a heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT)-like/heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis (HITT)-like phenomenon. Available evidence is insufficient to establish a causal association and further assessement is needed.


 * According to the latest from the EMA https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-review-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-continues the review of cases of very rare cases of unusual blood clots associated with low blood platelets (thrombocytopenia) is being carried out in the context of a safety signal, under an accelerated timetable. A safety signal is information on a new or incompletely documented adverse event that is potentially caused by a medicine such as a vaccine and that warrants further investigation. So yes, causation is being hypothesized and investigated. All of this should be part of the article not simply censored out as scaremongering. There is absolutely no reason to delete number of fatalities from this condition. Huasteca (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you just said it yourself: incompletely documented, and potentially caused - why have you not included either of those phrases in your edits? Your edits imply that it's known to be associated (and implied to be caused) by the vaccine. Nobody is actually hypothesizing that it's caused by - in fact, scientific consensus isn't even clear as to whether this is statistically significantly above the background rate of such events in population as a whole. This is an article about the vaccine, not about blood clots, thus it is completely valid to remove "number of deaths" as that sort of thing IS scaremongering - how many people die from blood clots every day and never came near this vaccine? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Berchanhimez there we have it. This is about your own personal take on how information should be "presented" in case the wider public "misunderstands". That is not our job. We present what sources say, we dont filter it so that they "get it right". Associated is the right term by the way. It does not imply causation. It just means two things "come together" or are correlated. I suspect this is why the term is used. Anyways, that's all from me for today. This is a hot topic. We all have strong opinions. So let's just stick to what the sources say and not worry about how they are interpreted, ok? Huasteca (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you misunderstand - we certainly do exert editorial control and don't simply WP:QUOTE what sources say - we make it in plain English. We also furthermore don't report things that are miniscule in the grand scheme of things - there are multiple vaccines that have had "safety signals" that resolved and you're not fighting for any changes on those, so why this one? Lastly, a safety signal is by definition extremely overly cautious - and you still ignore that it's basically been resolved at this point - while they may not have started full use back up, the science behind this is that there is no causation, and that the rate is not statistically different from the background rate of blood clots in the general population. Regardless, your edit was wrong as it implied things that you're now backtracking on - and your dislike for our editorial processes here doesn't change anything. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Berchanhimez I do not misunderstand anything. You disagree with me, which is fine. The science does not assert there is no causation as you are claiming. The EMA is currently investigating potential causation. I do not dislike Wikipedia's editorial processes at all nor should you present yourself as Wikipedia's spokesperson or representative when conversing with me. You are no more and no less of an editor than me or anyone else collaborating on this project. So please avoid fallacious arguments of authority. That's the second one after your rather pretentious attempt at lecturing me on 4th grader statistics. Huasteca (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how he 'presented himself as Wikipedia's spokesperson', when all he did was link to a commonly used policy guideline. You are correct that you are an editor just as much as he is, but Wikipedia is built on WP:CONSENSUS, and you not having secured it, due to the objections to your edits other editors raised above, is the reason why your edits were reverted. Getting defensive doesn't help you in this regard. Goodposts (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodposts Why would I get defensive? You are the guys struggling with developments, in denial about having been proven wrong following a now rather embarrassing torrent of abuse against my persona. I'm not even that bothered anymore. My scheduled AZ shot has been suspended today by our government so I'll be getting Pfizer. Edit warring on a Wikipedia article is pretty pointless at this stage. You guys can write AZ is magic and cures Aids and it won't have an impact on public perception. --Huasteca (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Huasteca Nobody is in denial. People are simply asking that you provide MEDRS-compliant sources. "Torrent of abuse"? People laid out a few criticisms of your edits. Your edits, not you as a person. Being able to accept constructive criticism of your work without taking it as a personal insult is pretty key if you intend on contributing to Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with getting Pfizer, and if anything, it has a higher clinical efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID infections. Congratulations on your upcoming shot, and I wish you the best in regards to your immunization. The rest of the things we laid out, however, still stand. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Goodposts That is a nice comment. Best regards to you as well and stay well.Huasteca (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events into Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine
This does not seem to be independently notable yet, and in fact this is basically a big article on a potential side effect of one vaccine - thus it is likely to turn into a POV fork, as it has now - using multiple primary studies and news to "overstate" these events contrary to WP:MEDRS. If a link/causation is eventually proven, or if this happens with other vaccines, then this may be independently notable, but at this point I think the best thing to do is merge the MEDRS compliant information here back to the article on the vaccine - at least until such time as the knowledge around this stabilizes and we can write an article with a decent amount of MEDRS information. Further, some of the information here would greatly duplicate the information on the main vaccine page - namely the suspensions - thus it's going to be difficult to expand this article while remaining outside the scope of the other article - which would be duplicative. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support not support a merge, as things have moved on . Per WP:NOPAGE this material would make better sense within the context of the parent article. If it ever gets too big, it can be spun off again. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC); amended 17:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge: While current evidence story of the of the emergence of this possible adverse event currently relates to the AZD1222 it remains possible other other Vaccines may also come under scrutinisation. The effect on this ADT1222 article will likely be WP:UNDUE unless the intention is to do a minimal merge.  And merging articles is a little like developing computers ... The perceived advice is not to try to optimise too early.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nowhere near enough information yet that can be medically reliably sourced that it would be undue - in fact, right now, there's basically only one or two sentences that comply with MEDRS guidelines - news articles not being considered MEDRS. I agree with your reasoning about the future - but we don't keep articles around because of what might happen in the future, and at this point, the separate article is primed to become a POV-split if/when people with a POV find it and start trying to add information to it that is at best not MEDRS compliant, and at worst anti-vaccine propaganda. I have no problem with allowing the other article to remain in draft space or a user's space in case it becomes independently notable and can be written appropriately - but at this time I think it's crystal-ball-ey to suggest that we should leave it in case/for when that happens. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @: Some of the content is MEDRS and some of it refers to other facts that doesn't have to be. I was not bloody impressed with and Template:Under construction/notread=yes being removed.  An article can be as big or as little as required ... not all subjects have to be the same size.  But I've better RL stuff, and WP stuff, to do than conversing here and I have found it better to do content rather than discussions.   I suppose I'd better declare I'm British and have had the AZD1222 vaccine.  AZD1222 seems like its going through a series of battles, each are quite interesting in themselves to study in detail.  Anyway I shall leave the floor for others at the moment, my mind is elsewhere and I am not Pim Junior, Wilde or WB. 21:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for removing it - that was a Twinkle thing that I didn't realize I had to re-select that tag to put it in when using Twinkle to start the merge discussion. I'm fine with it being readded if you so desire - sorry for the confusion User:Djm-leighpark - and I'll go readd it myself now. There's a lot of stress in all of us in the world right now related to COVID and I fully understand the frustration with trying to provide the best and most complete information here in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge: It seems to me the underlying objective of the merge is eliminating the sourced content of Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events since it goes against the "editorial stance" (to put it mildly) of the editor/s proposing the merge. A good faith merge could have its merits down the line, currently it is premature especially if the arguments given are limited to whataboutism and general denialism. Once we have more information over the next couple of months, the way forward will be clearer and will likely enjoy full consensus.--Huasteca (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, extremely blatant WP:POVFORK. No more than a sentence or two here would be WP:DUE, at most. This sort of thing requires strong WP:MEDRS sourcing, and the sources that are available mostly indicate it is not significant. This sort of uncertainty is (as the sources for that article note) entirely normal after early trials and devoting an entire article to it is extremely undue at this time. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Even if (and this is a big IF) any link between these extremely, and I mean extremely rare blood clots and the AZ jab (and to the author of that page's credit, he makes this quite clear right in the lead), then such content should be mentioned in the AZ article, rather than under this generic and highly disputed term of "VIPIT", which by itself suggests that any vaccine, including those unrelated to COVID-19, can in some way cause such events. This would be neither WP:DUE nor WP:CRYSTAL, and that's if the worst-case scenario for the AZ vaccine is confirmed, which it is presently not. All content that should be merged ought to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. It is worth noting, that the page to be merged is flagged as undergoing reconstruction at the moment, but the largest problem is the name of the article, which implies something that cannot be directly extrapolated from its content. Goodposts (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will point out pretty much every announcement in the last couple of weeks from UK MHRA, EMA and WHO allow for the possibility of a correlation and are investigating the same; whilst some recent personal statements from individuals from these organisations seem to be leaning towards the probability of a correlation increasing. It also has just been reported a trial of UK under 18 trial of AZD1222 has been paused until investigations on this issue have concluded.  WHO is expected to meet on 7 April 2021 on the matter and likely to make an announcement late that day or the next.  However statements from these organisations still maintains the benefits of the this vaccine outweigh the risks.  I also note recent additions to this article already have WP:UNDUE weight (even if a correlation is established). Also most likely unintentionally I am concerned these recent alterations have points of small bias and some omissions, which perhaps is unavoidable when making such changes on a fast changing topic.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I think I weakly support a merge based on WP:ARTICLESIZE and a sense that WP:RECENTISM may be making this subject seem more noteworthy than it is. Responding to some specific oppose rationales; - re "it remains possible other other Vaccines may also come under scrutinisation" - Possible. But that's a WP:CRYSTALBALL argument.  re "objective of the merge is eliminating the sourced content" - 1) WP:AGF, 2) I think we can keep most of the content and sources. NickCT (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * NickCT I would have loved to Assume Good Faith but I have been called ignorant, malicious and incompetent simply for arguing that the article should reflect that AZ is associated wit thrombotic episodes. There was an attempt to get be topic banned simply for posting my concerns on a noticeboard. These editors are still in denial even in the face of universal medical consensus that there is a chain of causation. I assume good faith until I'm proved wrong by overwhelming evidence. Have you read the lead of this article? I still think we are facing a WP:CONFLICT situation, but I'm no longer involved in this article.Huasteca (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the merge candidate article the EU is assessing ITP over all its approved vaccines. At this point I think I'm right in saying only AXD1222, Pfizer, & Moderna(EU) have been used at scale in the EU & UK up to March and while the evidence seems to be tending towards no link on the further to it is unclear when WHO will have more worldwide information on all vaccines.  IF AZT1222 was a war the blood clot side affect battle would be but one significant but ultimately small part of the story of the ADZ1222 rollout.  The data indicating say AZD1222 role in bringing down the Kent Variant wave of Covid-19 in the UK is perhaps more important (Phizer and Lockdowns playing equally important roles but it probably took all three).  Where I do concur is that this side effect has already received perhaps already an overly large footprint in this article, yet is highly notable and a separate article helps avoid WP:UNDUE expansion here.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support WP:NOTNEWS-I can't see a standalone article standing the test of time. Also, if there is an "editorial line", it should be confronted using established procedures, not via a fork. Park3r (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Weak support. I'd prefer that more attention be given to cleaning up the AstraZeneca article than splitting the content, but given that there are early reports of a second vaccine being investigated for this issue, the article could turn into something useful, possibly with a more descriptive title, something like COVID-19 vaccination embolic and thrombotic events perhaps. Park3r (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your reconsideration of your !vote, but I'd like to pose that even that would be a WP:POVFORK - the title itself (as this current one does) assumes that the events are somehow a) specific to COVID-19 vaccines, and b) that a causal link has been proven or is likely enough that it should be a separate article. Even the EMA still calls it a "possible link" even after AZ has come out and listed it as a potential adverse effect - thus I think it is still best covered in individual articles for the vaccines - at least until such time as a mechanism is researched and the mechanism if/when is shown to be due to the COVID part of the vaccines (and not something else). I encourage everyone to remember that we are not breaking news - we shouldn't rush to have an article on something just because it might merit one in the future, and this is way too soon to determine if this is independently notable, not to mention that virtually no medical reliable sources can be found for this at the time aside from press releases (which are MEDRS, but don't lend to MED notability). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Currently one vaccine is implicated but it is very early. Nevertheless, it has received substantial attention in the popular press, is generating high levels of public anxiety and is likely to grow in size as a result of these. It runs the risk of overwhelming the main article about the AZ vaccine, which also needs to discuss everything else. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , your entire !vote is based on what may happen in the future. You say that it may "overwhelm" the article - there's really only two or three sentences needed about this, anything more is not due weight for any article, and having this separate would be a WP:POVFORK. I'm quite surprised you chose to counter none of those arguments in your !vote here and instead put forth an opinion not based on policy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't lecture an old hand if you don't mind. I don't think I am obliged to address every single argument in the thread above. It is my considered judgement that this article has merit on its own. A substantial part of my clinical activity today involved responding to concerns about this condition. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry if you feel this is "lecturing", but I didn't think I'd have to question an administrator for expressing their opinion without any policy basis. I'm also more than allowed to point out when a !vote is unclear, confusing, contrary to policy, or otherwise should be discounted by the closer of the discussion - which is what I was doing here. If you have a problem with it, I encourage you to re-evaluate your !vote based on the policies/guidelines I linked to that your !vote ignores, and then explain why your !vote is in line with those policies - which, if you want your !vote to be considered, is your obligation. If you don't care whether your !vote is considered or not, then you're right that you have no obligation to address the arguments. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am respectfully declining your invitation to re-evaluate my !vote. Greetings. JFW &#124; T@lk  11:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One point of fact. In your proposal you state that this is a "potential side effect". The causation of this phenomenon is not in doubt anymore, with all regulatory and professional bodies acknowledging that there is a chain of causation between the vaccine and thrombocytopenic thrombosis at unusual sites. JFW &#124; T@lk  11:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Positive demonstrations (or otherwise) of causality are always epidemiologically challenging, and one couldn't realistically expect a *definitive* demonstration based on small clusters of cases. At the same time, the existence of a causal link is no longer a controversial claim (given the consistency of data distribution across different clusters, coupled with biological plausibility considerations, etc). And AZ has openly acknowledged that it is a possible rare side effect. It looks as if other vaccines that use similar delivery mechanisms could potentially also encounter similar issues - a possible editorial consideration here? Reuters has reported today (9 April) that similar potential links  are being investigated by EMA for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. 86.186.168.248 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the fact this rare side effect seems to effect also the J&J vaccine I'll change my vote. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose merge per JFW rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also oppose merge per JFW rational, note J&J vaccine is being investigated for the same thing https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/09/eu-agency-examines-reports-of-blood-clots-with-jj-covid-vaccine Jopal22 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events is essentially an article on a recent event. In my opinion, and with respect to its writers' efforts, it currently suffers from too much detail and recentism. Granted, recentism is sometimes positive, but a possible drug-related syndrome is not a natural disaster or a crime, and an encyclopedic article on it cannot be collated from day-to-day reports on healthcare agency views. (I'm not inclined to label the article a point-of-view fork any more.) As it is, the article serves little from a long-term, encyclopedic point of view. As a stand-alone article the only question it answers is "what are the current events regarding thrombotic side-effects of the AZ vaccine?"; the "encyclopedic" core of the information is, in my opinion, brief enough to be included in the parent article without burdening it with length or undue weight problems. I (among others) take special issue with the title of the subarticle: it alludes to the existence of a new medical entity that is simply too soon to tell if it is legitimate - despite secondary sources like health agency updates that mention it. The fact that a health agency uses an initialism in a statement is not enough for a Wikipedia article to base its title on it. If the merge is eventually overruled, I strongly suggest that the article title change to something in the tune of "Thrombotic complications of Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine". Importantly, the title issues are not an aside: they reflect, in my opinion, the problems with the very existence of this stand-alone article. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect several of the merge support !votes require little or no content being to be merged and no real need or value for a separate redirect on the current name (including by the merge nominator) I suggestion these are considerations for an WP:AFD forum if necessary and not appropriate for a these merge discussions. I do agree the article name needs to be change and while I welcome the good suggestion and agree that either AstraZeneca or Covid-19 need to be in the title I will be strongly arguing for the omission of AstraZeneca on the basis the scope is wider and use of AstraZeneca in that context may have unnecessary subtle non-neutral implications.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, especially given the J&J vaccine has a very-low-probability clotting issue too. I'd oppose NikosGouliaros's proposal to rename the Post-vax article too, as it feels (to me, at least) that that article should be expanded to include the J&J details. This article has a bit more information on that, if people need a starting point. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 16:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you may wish to review WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS, which your suggestion of using that article as a source to "improve" this flies in the face of. You're also displaying extreme WP:RECENTISM here, as it doesn't "ha[ve] a very-low-probability clotting issue too", there was merely 6 events observed - which when considering that millions have been vaccinated already, is less than 1 in a million - whereas hundreds of clotting events happen in the general population every day. It's also very presumptive to assume that, if they are caused by both vaccines, that they are similar enough to merit being in the same standalone article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You might like firstly, to read what I wrote again about a "starting point" and "very-low-probability". Given several countries have started taking action in the face of these miniscule-likelihood events and they are at least cursorily similar, for the moment it seems premature to suggest the article should be merged here. Finally, you might like to be rather less patronising and assume good faith in your replies to people. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it was not my intent to be patronizing, but merely to point out that you did not take into account the recentism/"news-ness" of suggesting Wikipedia should report on 6 events that occurred with a non-MEDRS as the source suggested. You say it's premature for the article to be merged as you feel they're similar - but Wikipedia follows, does not lead, and as such it's premature to even have this article until more evidence and data is out there. A news article is not appropriate even as a starting point for adding sources, because even if/when a news article does refer to specific studies, there are generally much better sources out there that should be sought instead. That is why I referred to WP:RECENTISM, as it pretty clearly says that in cases such as this you've identified, it is better to wait than try and form an article that is not up to our standards and may end up not being notable at all. This is especially true in the medical field where giving undue prominence to these exceedingly rare side effects (by covering them in a separate article as opposed to in their individual articles) can cause harm by misleading the public to think that these few dozen events (combined across AZ/JJ vaccines) are more concerning than they are. I'll note that clotting problems due to hormonal birth control are covered in that article - not a separate one - and those have both been proven and are much more common than in these cases - so while other stuff existing isn't an argument, it does show the precedent for applying the guidance on POV forks to this article as that's all it is - it's splitting this out into an article where it is unnecessary and serves only to repeat information that should be in the main article or not on Wikipedia at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not just AZ and not even that and J&J, but Sputnik V may have this problem too (although it's too early to say yet): Argentinian authorities reported two cases of Trombocitopenia inmune per 1.45M doses (next report is expected soon, there may be more details). Ain92 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There is no need to repeat all the arguments that have already been put forward. In fact, given the recent findings, it is even misleading and on the brink of blatant POV to classify that here any longer. The proposal must be decided now urgently and finally rejected. The reasons put forward for the proposal have no merit and are completely refuted. I also do not want any know-it-all comments against my fact-based vote, as happens all the time here. (Which is pretty annoying and absolutely not to my taste.) --SpexLibris (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've raised a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge for an uninvolved to take a look at this. ((I'm not actually sure the nom. could withdraw it if they wanted to due to other !votes). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To anyone who still wishes to comment or review their comment, there's a precedent here - hormonal contraception which is known to have a causal relationship with increased risk of clotting - and differs based on which exact medications are in the pills. There is no standalone article on such "post-contraception thrombotic events" because it's not independently notable. This is WP:RECENTISM at its finest and should be merged into individual vaccine articles on side effects as merited in those individual articles - and I'll note to whoever closes this discussion that there has been no argument for not merging that doesn't amount to not liking it - whereas those supporting merging have presented clear policy based arguments for merging that have not been refuted. If people really think AfD is the better route, I agree I can't withdraw this merge request (as editors other than me have supported), but if this does not close with a consensus to merge, that is the next step. An uninvolved editor assessing the merits of the arguments and providing a conclusion to this would be appreciated by all here I feel. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the existing content about these events is probably at or about the correct footprint weight there is relatively little that would be suitable for direct merge, and a redirect with history might be the most likely result. With the merge-from candidate title being pointed out as being unsuitable (and certainly so in my opinion as a redirect), some arguments actually effectively being a WP:MAD !vote I would welcome a close any those able to raise a good faith AfD can raise the discussion.  With the situation and article state at the start of this discussion a merge proposal at that time was reasonable.  A close with the closer noting no prejudice against raising of an XfD as now the more correct forum if necessary.  Pragmatically I think evaluating a consensus to merge is unlikely and likely to be challenged, a close with no consensus to merge would mean at the merge template could be removed from this article. I'm hoping a uninvolved closer can be WP:BOLD in moving this on past a statemate. To loosely quote a (good) manager I knew in Essex ... "I don't care what you do but do something.  If you do something reasonable I will support you."  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)  (Actually this is a great case for someone aiming to be RFA candidate to get BOLD. 23:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename this page to COVID-19 vaccine Adverse Events, and create an "Adverse Events" section in COVID-19 vaccine and an "COVID-19 vaccine" section in Vaccine adverse event. is basically right, as travelers thrombosis is also notable but belongs as a section of Deep vein thrombosis, and there are many similar examples.  and  may agree to this proposal, as the focus on this one adverse event type and vaccine types must be put in context, lest we inadvertently cause more public anxiety and Vaccine hesitancy. CutePeach (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to COVID-19 vaccine Adverse Events, and oppose refocus of Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events though it probably needs a needs a rename. But that page is the rightful place for this discussion, not here.  Am I also correct in that there may have now been mild Canvassing here? Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that @CutePeach meant to suggest renaming Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events to COVID-19 vaccine adverse events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Reference to University Medicine Greifswald Reports Breakthrough in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination-Related Thrombotic Complications
One last point from me here. It might be good to have some detail on the mechanism whereby Astrazeneca increases the likelihood of cerebral brain thrombosis and also the treatments required should such event occur.

Note that Greifwald University is clear that it does not contradict the EMA on this. The EMA is right in stating that there is no accumulation of typical thromboses, such as leg vein thromboses or pulmonary embolisms. On the whole, cerebral vein thromboses (sinus thromboses) among vaccinated persons still occur in very rare cases; however, they are occurring more frequently than expected, given the size of the vaccinated cohort.

https://www.uni-greifswald.de/en/university/information/current-news/details/n/university-medicine-greifswald-reports-breakthrough-in-sars-cov2-vaccination-related-thrombotic-complications/ Huasteca (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Today's EMA announcement and UK's MHRA decision
EMA has now officially announced that blood clots should be listed as a very rare side effect of AZ. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/blood-clots-very-rare-side-effect-astrazeneca-vaccine-european-regulator-n1263120

Following 79 rare blood clots in the UK, 19 of whom have died, the MHRA has decided to offer an alternative to Astrazeneca to under 30s in the UK. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56665517

Huasteca (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * EMA and MHRA are both usable, WP:MEDRS sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Blood clots are per WP:MEDRS sources confirmed as very rare (less than 1 in 10.000 cases) side effects of this vaccine. Remember not to use newspaper sources when possible but to use the direct WP:MEDRS source such as an official EMA or MHRA statement etc. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT is still reporting it as a possible link as of today - it has not been proven to be caused by, and listing it as a side effect is an abundance of caution approach that doesn't prove causation. I'm beginning to think some people are attempting to use the blood clotting issue to attempt to sow vaccine hesitancy in others - because otherwise they would've cited the EMA themselves which clearly says it hasn't been fully proven yet but is still possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @: Veiled indirect WP:NPA? Please be specific rather than vaguewave allegations. Do you mean me?  Some people volunteers are busy in RL; are being hassled by their missus, etc. etc. etc.  As you mention it I was privately musing from an operation research viewpoint your if some of your contributions to this article may be contributing to risk of vaccine hesitancy over the blood clotting issue?  Though of course I very much WP:AGF that was not your intention.  I am actually looking at this area at the moment but I can be a great man for the old sidetrack.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I did not mean you - you have been discussing and willing to accept when consensus is against you (as all of us should be), I was referring to the person who opened this section. I trust that you yourself would've started from the actual announcement (which would be a MEDRS) and not from cherry-picked news articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User If you mean me that is an extremely serious personal attack which I had not even picked up on until now. I have received enough insults. I kindly request you to please stop calling people anti-vaxers. I also suggest you listen to medical doctors here who are already explaining to you that you are flat out wrong and stop editing this article. It is because of you that it remains a mess. Huasteca (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Read also: other vaccines
Currently there are no links to other covid-19 vaccines at the end of article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Efficacy

In the table "Efficacy by severity of COVID-19" there are links to vaccine pages.

"No detailed efficacy data of the vaccine has been published in peer-review journals
 * SinoPharm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBIBP-CorV

UAE announcement of the approval for BBIBP-CorV noticeably lacked details such as the number of COVID-19 cases in the placebo or active group, or the volunteers ages".


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson_COVID-19_vaccine

--ee1518 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * With respect there is Template:Vaccines at the bottom and Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar which also drill down to however people wish it. There may be a case of for an efficacy/effictiveness section ... Reception currently partially covers it but efficacy/effectiveness goes more to requiring MEDRS.  In one form one is looking at the vaccine's role for particular variants: (a) preventing contracting COVID-19; (b) preventing an individual developing serious harm if COVID-19 is acquired; and (c) reduction in viral load if becoming infected.  It takes volunteer effort to do address these things. But the subject of this article is AZD1222 and its hard enough doing a good job on that. Thankyou. 21:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

EMA has confirmed that blood clotting is a very rare side effect of the vaccine
I am working from memory but the EMA determining that listing "Blood Clotting associated with low blood platelets as a side effect of the vaccine" is not quite the same as saying a there is a "confirmed causal link" that "Blood Clotting associated with low blood platelets as a side effect of the vaccine". I believe teh listing as a side effect occurs on the basis of a possible/plausible/probable causal link. World Health Organisation recently used the term "plausible" with regards to the causal link. I think thats current state of play. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with this, and that's what I've been trying to clarify in this and the (still separate) other article - the EMA is listing it as a side effect because it is plausible (or possible, take your pick) and because there's not yet the full analysis that would be required to prove it is or is not caused by the vaccine. It's like how the FDA mandates medication guides for medicines that sometimes end up listing really random, obviously unconnected side effects, but because they were observed in clinical trials they have to be listed. Or alternatively, it's like people who use VAERS reports of "left arm amputated due to necrotizing fasciitis" as an excuse to say "vaccines caused that". It's simply too soon to say in WP voice that it's a causal link, and I think that we need to tread carefully to cover the entirety of the opinions of agencies - including the part about why they are listing it (abundance of caution, better wording may be possible) - not just that it is being listed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I am reasonably certain we are likely generally very much on the same page on most of this or very nearly so. I have concerns your efforts in this area might sometimes at times be seen as POV pushing while I can AGF you are likely trying to ensure these safety concerns are kept in proportion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , same with you - I think we are both trying to ensure that the most accurate information is presented in context and perspective. I think we need to focus on presenting the information as given and not worry about what people who have a POV to push (not you, but others) want to say they're saying. I agree that I likely come at it a bit strong on one side, and I'm more than happy to work with you and others to find the best wording :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination
Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination is a peer-reviewed article published in The New England Journal of Medicine which is a core general medical journal according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine).

The abstract is as follows:


 * We report findings in five patients who presented with venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia 7 to 10 days after receiving the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vector vaccine against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The patients were health care workers who were 32 to 54 years of age. All the patients had high levels of antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes; however, they had had no previous exposure to heparin. Because the five cases occurred in a population of more than 130,000 vaccinated persons, we propose that they represent a rare vaccine-related variant of spontaneous heparin-induced thrombocytopenia that we refer to as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

The last sentence in the article states:


 * Although rare, VITT is a new phenomenon with devastating effects for otherwise healthy young adults and requires a thorough risk–benefit analysis. The findings of our study indicate that VITT may be more frequent than has been found in previous studies in which the safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine has been investigated.

I'm not sure if other editors find it interesting in the process of improving the article.

84.211.112.83 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Primary research, failing WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not even sure this is "primary research" - it's a small case series/study - which personally I consider to be separate from and even weaker than a primary study. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, - near the bottom of the triangle at WP:MEDASSESS. Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Reception
I am posting for discussion the part called "Reception" that was deleted by User:Gtoffoletto. The fact that concerns have been voiced also from government side should be noted or integrated somewhere in the article instead of being deleted:

The Oxford University and AstraZeneca collaboration was initially seen as having great potential as a safe, effective and cheap vaccine with initial contracts on a "not-for-profit" basis. In 2021, AstraZeneca has encountered difficulties with regulators, politicians, supplies, and safety concerns, which have led some countries to suspend or restrict AZD1222 vaccinations despite the overall view that the vaccine is effective and safe.

In a session of the Austrian Parliament member of parliament Gerald Hauser on 1 April 2021 publicly criticised a potential conflict of interest of Emer Cooke, Executive Director of EMA, by her allowing the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to be approved, while having worked for the very same industry in the past as a lobbyist of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA).

---

Gryffindor (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the section breaks several policies for vaccine and medical articles:
 * In the manual of style you can find suggested sections for drugs and vaccines Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles. "Reception" is not one of them.
 * The current content makes some medical claims (e.g. "safe and effective") without proper WP:MEDRS sourcing
 * The current content gives WP:UNDUE weight to scarcely related and minority views such as the fact that Emer Cooke had a conflict of interest.
 * I'm removing the section once more. Also consider that the current contents of that section are basically already covered elsewhere in the article. Maybe you could expand the article in another section however keep in mind the policies above if you choose to reintroduce some of the content I'm removing. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Society and culture section

 * In other words we should have a "Society and culture" section rather than removing the original contents of the "reception section".   Does anyone have objection to a "Society and culture" section.  After this kick in the WP:CRYSTAL BALLs to my contribution which has just been removed twice I predict the AZD1222 saga will probably be a film at point point anyway. 23:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
 * The section currently basically only includes one source which is an opinion piece. I've removed the section once but reverted. I think either we expand it or we should remove it. -- &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would remove it. It doesn't really say anything that hasn't already been said, and has the sourcing problems you point out. Also the clause starting with "this despite ..." borders on WP:SYNTH. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @: To state the obvious I'm happy for improvement and expansion. This article has multiple issues currently though per your object to "Reception" about I've spent some effort refactoring into WP:MEDSECTIONS (and am reasonably broadly happy with the result and a better basis going forward), and am to a degree a little spent so doing.  I could slamdunk additional sources at it but the article is already over-heavy on sources and may even be becoming a little sluggish to edit.  A Template:expand could be placed on the section, pragamtically might make things worse.  I'd currently be preferring to add a "Research" section on "Booster jabs" against new variants and timescales (and scale timescales) and also "Risk Benefits" analysis than to be overly concentrating on this.  But if I have to I probably will.  I've already over-committed my RL to this QP subject area already at this time.  There's no doubt to me AZ has gained a reputation ... (perhaps some fairly, perhaps some not so fairly).  It might be a different matter if this article was approaching "B Class" but at the moment I'd say it was simply a "C".  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you improved the article significantly with your refactor! We now have a much more solid structure to build upon. This section is just a bit scant at the moment and relies on a single not very strong source. -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am looking over the BBC/Jack source again (30 March 21) to ensure I did not take points from another source into it (but I'm a tad tired currently). Anybody any thoughts/preferences on doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n921 as a source (content may need a re-write to fit)?  Its hot off the press and I have immediately fallen in love with Wise Jacqui.  We typically need RS not MEDRS in this section I think. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)  I am also considering AZD1222 contributions to COVAX where I am reasonably sure if has been doing a good part of the "heavy-lift" in the programme but sources such as  seem to obfusticate such answers rather than simply say: "How may doses delivered under COVAX (SII producing various vaccine types and India being a COVAX recipient make seemingly simple answers to a simple question hard.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Authorization Map Broken and inaccurate
The map is not working under the authorization section. If you can fix it, I think we should also add a suspended section for the vaccine, made up of Germany, Italy, France, Spain, South Africa, Denmark, Norway, and The Netherlands and Sweden TapticInfo (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @: Can you please eloborate as far as you can on the "Not working". Please describe exactly what you see as not working.  This is helpful to anyone looking at it.  With respect many volunteers would see the map information to be pragmatically not sustainable driven by automatic data feed.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)

Efficacy section
Do we really need the Efficacy section when we have already said the same thing in two other places? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDSECTIONS the "Medical Uses" is the suggested placed for an efficacy information. So as I understand it that is the correct and expected primary location for an Efficacy statement.  And if the lead section is to mention efficacy, and it possibly should, then that really should come from the Medical Uses section of the body.  Its touch and go whether an Efficacy subsection is required or a separate paragraph is useful.   I think I'd prefer to be sourced using the WHO ratified efficacy statement.  Like nearly everything AZD1222 Efficacy is controversial, and it may turn out Effectiveness (in preventing harm) is perhaps the better real-world metric.  In summary I copied the statement from the lead section to "Medical Uses" as the latter was the correct primary location for that information and the statement in the lead section would have received and passed scrutiny so an ideal starting point.  Where efficacy is currently elsewhere I have simply not looked if it could be smoothly removed from whatever context without unbalancing that section.  Brute force approach was put Efficacy where MEDSECTIONS said it should be and everything else can mould into place with time.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I've elected to revert your good faith pulling of the historical efficacy statements into this section. The reason is I think the article is looking for a very solid statement of the status of determination of the efficacy, (and perhaps effectiveness) and not a chronological history.  There are obviously a range of efficacy figures quoted, but whats needed here I feel is primarily a clear statement of efficacy, and the move alone didn't seem to do it in my opinion.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Danish AZD1222 supply
re: good faith revert of by  (and note this is an edit conflict with a good faith attempt to compromise and Huasteca may well be more right than I am)   If something is permanently suspended that is pretty much an oxymoron because it cant be unsuspended. Okay if I take the a definition of permanent as "lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely." that comes out of a google search perhaps it isn't. Probably more important is what is happening to Denmark's supply of 200,000 AZ doses, quoting from livement (Brostrom is head of the DHA):  "Meanwhile, a number of countries have already said they will approach Denmark to ask whether they can buy its unused Astra shots, of which it has about 200,000. Brostrom signaled he was open to the idea, but said Denmark would keep some doses, in case it suddenly finds itself fighting an intense third wave. About a third of the existing batch only has a shelf-life until June, Brostrom said.". That detail might be too much for an entry here but its generally relevant. (and is another example of how the Risk:Benenfit ratio of AZD1222, and indeed of any vaccine, goes in favor of vaccination the more prevalent infections become, and against vaccination if the infection rate is low. There's a big question of what happens to in gneral unused supplies if a country stops using the vaccine. 11:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 11:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, although I did revert you I also then edited to address your oxymoron concerns you raised by switching from permanently to indefinitely. I hope you agree with that. It sounds the most logical to me. Regards.Huasteca (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regards my earlier revert of your first contribution with my probably incorrect understanding of the word "permanent": If an apology will do then I offer it. As I have indicated above, some details behind Denmark's actions and retention of supplies in reserve against a possible third wave are in fact of far more interest and focus.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Djm-leighpark I didn't realize that was you who made that edit. Not asking for an apology. You didn't do anything wrong. I think we should all just chill out over this article generally. There isn't even that much room for debate anymore anyways. Its pretty straightforward. Huasteca (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * How common side effect of other vaccines is Thrombocytopenia, and clinical relevance? ==

Is the only clinical relevance, that one shouldn't measure platelet count immediately after vaccination?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X0700268X?via%3Dihub Vaccine. Volume 25, Issue 31, 1 August 2007, Pages 5717-5724

Thrombocytopenia (TP) as an adverse event following immunization: a transient but sometimes profound fall in platelet counts has also been reported after immunization against hepatitis B [5], [6], [7], [8], hepatitis A [8], influenza [9], diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) [10], [11], Hemophilus influenzae type b [10], pneumococcal disease [12], [13], measles, mumps and rubella [10], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], poliomyelitis [10], [11], varicella [27], [28], [29], smallpox [30], [31], rabies [32], and HIV (gp120 or gp60 derived antigens) [33].

With rubella and varicella vaccines, all children immunized were asymptomatic and maintained platelet counts above 100 × 109 L−1[35], [36]. In one study of live measles vaccine, platelet counts decreased by more than 25 × 109 L−1 in 86% of vaccines and the lowest count was 64 × 109 L−1 in an asymptomatic infant [37].

Median intervals between immunization with MMR vaccine and onset of symptoms are 12–25 days (range 1–83 days) with an increased relative risk for hospitalization due to clinical manifestations between 15 and 28 days after immunization [10], [24], [25], [26].

Most post-immunization episodes of TP resolve within 3 months, although low platelet counts may rarely persist for more than 6 months [24]

--ee1518 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)